asked the Lord Privy Seal what further action he is now taking to secure agreement on a nuclear test ban.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on the talks on ending nuclear test explosions.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 4th February in reply to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and Barking (Mr. Driberg).

Is not the Soviet position in these talks hard to defend? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now they have accepted the principle of on-site inspection the gap between the two sides seems to have narrowed a good deal? Will he undertake next week at the discussions at the disarmament conference to find ways and means of narrowing the gap between two or three on-site inspections on the one side and eight and ten on the other?

Yes, it is perfectly true that the gap has been narrowed because the Soviet Union has returned to its position in 1961 in accepting on-site inspection. The United States and we ourselves for our part have moved in the number of inspections which we requested from 20 down to between ten and eight. We hoped that in the dis- cussions which were carried out in New York between the Soviet Union and the United States it would be possible to reach agreement. We are, therefore, sorry that the Soviet Union decided to suspend those talks and to take the matter back to the nuclear test conference, but we naturally hope to make progress there.

But since the gap between three and ten is so small—HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Call we not compromise on six or seven, and why not ask neutral scientists to make the inspection? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are sick and disgusted that all three Governments in their eternal test ban dance go up and down, one advancing the other retreating, like a minuet? Surely the British Government could give a lead and contract out of the business? That would clinch it.

The American and the British Governments have, as I have just said, made their contributions towards trying to get a settlement. The position is that the Soviet Union has indicated that it believes that the number of tests is a political matter, and we hold strongly the view that this is, of course, a matter of scientific means of detection and of defence and is, therefore, vital; but we want to reach agreement with the Soviet Union.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain this vital difference in practical terms between, say, five on-site inspections and eight, which we agreed?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward this proposal on behalf of one side or the other. I am not here at the Dispatch Box to negotiate sums for a final settlement.

Mr. Henderson:

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the negotiations for a nuclear test ban agreement and on the progress made at the 18-Power Disarmament Conference.

On the nuclear test ban negotiations, I have nothing to add to the reply I have just given to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), and Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). The Eighteen Power Disarmament Conference is due to reconvene tomorrow. During the last session before Christmas no significant progress was made on the subject of disarmament.

Mr. Henderson:

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that more than a year ago the United States and Soviet Governments introduced their disarmament plans into the conference? Does he remember that that was followed by a statement by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary indicating that Her Majesty's Government would produce a master plan? Are the Government producing a master plan? If not, what initiative do they propose to take at the resumed conference?

We have given our full support to the United States plan.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in his letter to Mr. Khrushchev at the time of the Cuban crisis, the Prime Minister said that the crisis opened the way to new initiatives on disarmament, with special reference to stage one of the disarmament plan? What has been done to follow that up?

In the general position, we have seen new initiatives in the nuclear test talks, first in New York and now transferred to the conference. As for the other matters, we must await the conference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary said in Geneva at the Committee of 18 last March that the Committee should take the best parts of both the Russian and the American plans and make a master plan? What have we taken from the Russian plan? Have we in any degree given support to any of their proposals?

I understand that the Conference has been examining each part of the plans. Unfortunately progress has been very slow indeed. It is therefore not near the stage where we can produce a master plan from two plans.

What have the Government done?

We have taken our full part in the discussions on the various sections of the plans.